First Principles

This is the first of several columns that will highlight some of the key points and course content associated with DBIA’s educational programs. Although we can’t really get into the many details and examples provided in the course, we will do our best to give you a taste of what is covered in this core course. We are starting with the Principles of Design-Build Project Delivery course and will eventually work our way through the entire course, sharing key fundamental concepts.

The first lesson to learn in design-build is that there is nothing — not a single thing about it — that is like design-bid-build. We start every Principles of Design-Build course trying to drive home this point. In other words, we can’t just tweak the traditional design-bid-build model and somehow come out the other end having miraculously transformed the process. How could it be? Approaching the new model with old attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions will create a new approach that looks an awful lot like the old approach. Frankly, though the results may improve, the opportunity for performance optimization will be missed.

You have to ask yourself whether you truly want to take advantage of all the benefits that this single source, collaborative process can deliver. Design-build is a whole new way of thinking and a whole new way of doing business. It requires a paradigm shift. You will have a much harder time making that shift if you don’t first understand the fundamental differences between the two project delivery methods.

Design-build is fundamentally different than design-bid-build in ten distinct ways:

1. Contractual relationship of the primary parties.
2. Solicitation and basis of award.
3. Implied warranty risk.
4. What constitutes the initial contract components.
5. Working relationship of the parties.
6. How services are procured.
7. How costs are developed.
8. Who controls the details of the design.
9. The relationship between design and cost.
10. The design and construction management process.

The first four differences are fairly easy to grasp. The last six can be a little more difficult to understand and embrace, especially if you are trying to reconcile the differences while still holding onto the traditional design-bid-build mindset. Let’s just take a look at a couple of these. For instance, let’s consider numbers three and four.

Difference number three deals with something called the Spearin Doctrine. Under the doctrine, which is applicable to the design-bid-build method, the owner impliedly warrants the plans and specifications to the contractor and maintains that a contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or defects in such plans and specifications. However, in design-build, the plans and specs are developed and prepared under the direction of the design-builder, not the owner. Therefore, the design-builder impliedly warrants the plans and specifications to the owner, and any loss associated with insufficiencies or defects in such plans and specifications shall be borne by the design-builder. Boy, does that change the tone of the relationship!

Or how about difference number four? In the traditional design-bid-build model the contract is governed by the plans and specifications. These plans and specs are 100 percent complete at the time of bidding. Not so in design-build. As a matter of fact, rarely do you have a fully developed design when the design-build contract is awarded. What initially governs the design-build contract is the Request for Proposal (RFP), the Price Proposal (if there is one), and the Technical Proposal. The plans and specs aren’t fully developed until after the design-build contract is awarded. Although an RFP may have some percentage of design as part of the criteria, the design-builder primarily submits its proposal based upon performance requirements and not on prescriptive plans and specs.

Although I have tried to explain these differences in relatively simple terms, the fine nuances associated with these design-build fundamental concepts can be complex. However, the bottom line is this — the only thing in design-build that resembles design-bid-build is the construction and construction methods themselves. Of course, a design-bid-build crane looks just like a design-build crane. The way we finish concrete in design-build is the same way we finish concrete in design-bid-build. But other than the construction methods themselves, there is nothing about the process that looks like design-bid-build. The best way to get the most out of the design-build project delivery method is to first comprehend fully just how different it really is. So the one best lesson to learn from this column is to stop trying to “fit” design-build into the old design-bid-build mold. By doing so you risk never experiencing the level of project success possible when you fully engage the design-build process. The differences that may seem difficult to grasp initially are exactly the same differences that allow the process to work, delivering high performance and often extraordinary results.

If we have succeeded in whetting your appetite for more understanding of the fundamental Principles of Design-Build Project Delivery, we hope you will visit our website and check out the calendar of courses scheduled over the next several months. Coming up in the next column is one of the toughest nuts to crack when transitioning to design-build — Making the Mental Shift.